Edison v. State of West Virginia, Ex.Rel. et al

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 16 ) AND TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA. The Court adopts the 16 Report and Recommendation; Overrules Edison's 18 Objections and Orders that this action be TRANSFERRED to the Southern District of West Virginia for all further proceedings. It further orders that this action be stricken from the docket of this Court. Should Edison desire to appeal the decision of this Court, written notice of a ppeal must be received by the Clerk of this Court within sixty (60) days from the date of the entry of the judgment order, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Signed by Senior Judge Irene M. Keeley on 3/9/18. (To PS Petitioner via cert. mail)(mh) [Transferred from West Virginia Northern on 3/9/2018.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AARON A. EDISON,
Petitioner,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17CV114
(Judge Keeley)

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, EX. REL.;
WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN RESOURCES;
BUREAU OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT;
and CAROLIN M. DOTSON,
Respondents.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 16] AND
TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Pending

is

the

Report

and

Recommendation

(“R&R”)

of

the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that this action be transferred to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia (Dkt. No. 16). For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS
the Magistrate Judge’s R&R.
I.
On January 27, 2017, the pro se petitioner, Aaron A. Edison
(“Edison”), filed a Petition seeking “appeal” against “the State of
West Virginia, Ex. Rel., the West Virginia Department of Health and
Human Resources, the Bureau of Child Support Enforcement, and
Carolin M. Dotson” (Dkt. No. 1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the
local rules, the Court referred Edison’s Petition to the Honorable
Michael J. Aloi, United States Magistrate Judge, for initial review.
After Magistrate Judge Aloi ordered Edison to clarify his
filing (Dkt. No. 13), he indicated that his intent was to attack his

EDISON V. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, ET AL.

1:17CV114

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 16] AND
TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
conviction in the Circuit Court of Wirt County, West Virginia, for
failure to pay child support by “appeal[ing] the Memorandum Decision
issued by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.” He also
sought relief against the respondents “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254"
for alleged gender discrimination in violation of his “Fourteenth
Amendment right to Equal Protection under the law” (Dkt. No. 15 at
3-4).
Following review, Magistrate Judge Aloi recommended that the
Court transfer this matter in its entirety to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia because
all of Edison’s claims involve various agencies and courts in Wirt
County, which lies within the Southern District of West Virginia.
The R&R determined that it would be more convenient for the parties
and in the interest of justice to transfer this action to the
Southern District (Dkt. No. 20 at 12).
Edison filed a timely objection to the R&R, contending the case
should remain in the Northern District of West Virginia because he
will be “greatly inconvenience[d]” by a transfer in venue (Dkt. No.
18). Following a de novo review of the portion of the R&R to which
Edison objects, the Court concludes that his objection is without
merit and that this case should be transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

2

EDISON V. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, ET AL.

1:17CV114

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 16] AND
TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
II.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of the
parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court
may transfer any civil action to any other district or division
where it might have been brought.” Edison does not dispute that this
case could have been brought in the Southern District of West
Virginia; rather, he argues that the magistrate judge improperly
concluded it would be more convenient for the parties to transfer
the case. At bottom, Edison seeks to have this action remain in the
Northern District of West Virginia simply because he resides in
Taylor County, which lies within the Northern District.
Because the events giving rise to this action all occurred in
Wirt County, the magistrate judge properly concluded that this case
should be transferred to the Southern District. Edison’s challenge
to his criminal conviction for failure to pay child support occurred
in Wirt County. Additionally, the necessary witnesses and all
defendants in this action are found in the Southern District. The
only connection of the Northern District to this case is

Edison’s

residence here. That fact is not dispositive, however, and venue
clearly is most appropriate in the Southern District of West
Virginia, where the events alleged in this action arose. The Court,
therefore:

3

EDISON V. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, ET AL.

1:17CV114

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 16] AND
TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
1)

ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 16);

2)

OVERRULES Edison’s objection (Dkt. No. 18);

3)

ORDERS that this action be TRANSFERRED to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia,

Charleston

Division,

for

all

further

proceedings, and that any motions pending be transferred
with the case for consideration by the transferee court;
and
4)

ORDERS that this action be STRICKEN from the docket of
this Court.

Should Edison desire to appeal the decision of this Court,
written notice of appeal must be received by the Clerk of this Court
within sixty (60) days from the date of the entry of the judgment
order, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
It is so ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a separate judgment order
and to transmit copies of this Order to the pro se petitioner,
certified mail and return receipt requested.
DATED: March 9, 2018.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4